Orbit Group Limited (202300902)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300902

Orbit Group Limited

27 November 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of his property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The evidence shows that the resident did not live at the property, and rented it out.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2022 and reported water was overflowing the guttering and pouring down the exterior walls. He reported the ceiling was damp and was concerned water was “seeping through”. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 7 November and said the landlord had taken “no action” and given “no response” to his concerns. He reported the recent wet weather had made the situation “much worse”. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 7 November 2022. It said it had booked the repairs for the first available appointment, after it had checked for asbestos, for 25 November 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged it would complete the repair outside of its target of 28 days.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended on 25 November 2022, and the notes from the visit stated: “water [was] penetrating through bricks” and was causing damp issues. The notes stated a “re raise” was needed. It is unclear what further action the landlord took at that time.
  5. The landlord raised works to the external guttering and downpipes on 30 November 2022. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 8 December 2022. The evidence indicates neither took place at that time.
  6. The landlord completed some works to the external guttering and downpipe in January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord, through is local councillor, on 14 February 2023, and asked his complaint to go to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. He said that the landlord had not carried out any works inside his property since issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
  7. The resident reported the guttering issue again on 14 April 2023, and the landlord raised a further inspection. It attended on 26 April 2023, and the notes reflect the gutters were not working properly. It said the gutters were allowing water to run down the side of the building, which was causing damp and mould in the resident’s property. It attended again on 16 May 2023 and reported the gutters were clear and the issue might be related to blockage underground.
  8. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property on 23 May 2023. The report cited there was “substantial mould growth” due to a roof leak that was “now resolved”. The report recommended mould treatment and “extensive redecoration”. The landlord arranged a specialist drain contractor to inspect the drains. It descaled and jetted the drainpipes on 30 May 2023. The landlord raised a further inspection of the roof on 23 June 2023, as the resident continued to report issues when it rained.
  9.  The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2023. It gave a history of the repairs, and said it planned a further inspection of the roof on 3 August 2023. It said it would complete the outstanding plastering and redecoration in the resident’s property on 16 August 2023. It set out its position in relation to the costs the resident claimed to have incurred. It offered £410 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £200 for its “poor complaint handling”.

Events after the complaint

  1. The landlord completed the plastering and redecoration works in October 2023.The resident reported further issues with the water ingress and guttering in October 2023. The landlord inspected and found:
    1. The works to the roof and guttering were finished, and the exterior of the building was “no longer wet”.
    2. There was “no mould” at the resident’s property, but a cupboard in the hallway had a “wet patch”, and the neighbours cupboard adjacent to it had a “strong smell of damp”.
    3. It raised a further “leak trace” inspection. It is unclear when the leak trace inspection went ahead.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 24 January 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said there was “no resolution” to the issues, and he was unhappy with the compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. When the resident provided information to the landlord for the stage 2 complaint, in July 2023, he asked the landlord to pay compensation for the loss of rental income on the property. It is not within the remit of this Service to offer compensation for a loss of rental income. Such a determination ultimately requires a decision by the courts, or from the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this matter further. We have however considered whether there was any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. The resident’s email of July 2023 also asked the landlord to consider a refund of council tax covering the period the complaint was ongoing. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not in a position to offer a refund for council tax. Council tax is payable to the local authority, and as such it is not within our remit to determine whether a council tax refund was due. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about council tax. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the local authority and/or the LGSCO if he remains unhappy about his liability to pay council tax on the property.
  3. The resident’s email of July 2023 also asked the landlord to pay for the cost of new floor coverings and radiators in his property, due to the damage caused by the repairs issues.While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, it is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts.
  4. We note the landlord asked the resident to provide further information for its “loss adjuster” to consider. While we do not seek to make a determination on whether the resident’s items were damaged by the leak, the landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now, if it has a liability insurer, so he can raise a claim if he wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim. It is, however, the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

The resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories of responsive repair: ‘emergency’ and ‘routine’. It states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. The policy states that when a resident reports damp and mould it will conduct a risk assessment with the resident “before determining whether repair is required”.
  3. The landlord was on notice about an issue with the guttering and water running down the outside of the building from October 2022. From the evidence provided, a repair log for the whole building, it is not possible to determine which report was made by the resident for this complaint. However, it is clear that there were multiple reports of the same issue around this time, and the landlord did not take appropriate action to investigate. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident an inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 21 November 2022, admitted a failing that it had not attended within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. While we note the delay was not excessive, that it did not offer appropriate redress or show learning for its admitted failing was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right, and build trust with the resident.
  5. The landlord attended to inspect the roofing/guttering issue on 25 November 2022, and it is noted that this was not excessively outside of its target timeframe for repairs. However, the evidence shows that it did not complete any repairs at that visit and the notes stated a “re raise” was needed. It is unclear what was meant by this, and there is no evidence to indicate it followed up at the time. This caused a further delay with progressing with the repair, and increased the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  6. The information available for this investigation shows the landlord did not take any further action to try and resolve the issues until January 2023. While it is noted the repair was a complex that required scaffolding, the resident was inconvenienced by the delay of 3 months. He experienced a further inconvenience by the fact the landlord was not proactive in providing updates about its progress on the repair.
  7. The landlord first raised a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property in December 2022. The evidence shows that this did not take place until May 2023. This was 5 months after the matter was raised, and an unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions he described in his property, the unreasonable delay increased the distress and inconvenience he experienced.
  8. The landlord did not complete and in depth survey of the drain system until May 2023. The evidence shows that the works it completed in January 2023 did not resolve the issue and the resident raised further concerns in March 2023. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord believed the matter resolved between January and March 2023. However, that it took a further 2 months for a more thorough investigation of the drain system when it was clear the matter was not resolved, was unreasonable. This increased the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, accepted that there were unreasonable delays in completing repairs. The response was detailed, and offered redress to try and put right its admitted failings, which was appropriate. However, the complaint response lacked learning and did not set out how it would prevent similar failings happening again. Despite admitting failings, the stage 2 response did not offer an apology for the landlord’s handling of the issues. This was inappropriate.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord did not complete the internal works at the resident’s property until October 2023. While it is noted there were some issues with accessing the property, and the landlord needed to be satisfied the water ingress issue was resolved, the delay was unreasonable. This increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  11. The landlord reinspected the external works in October 2023, and was satisfied the issue was resolved. It is however noted that the landlord noticed a possible other source of water ingress (from the neighbour’s cupboard), and it booked a further inspection to trace the leak. The outcome of this is unclear. As the new leak is not part of the scope of this investigation, we are not seeking to make a determination on the landlord’s handling of the issue. However, as the outcome of this issue is unclear, we have made a recommendation below.
  12. We welcome the fact the landlord offered the resident compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. However, at the time of its offer of compensation the matter was outstanding, and the resident experienced a further delay in the internal works being completed. As such, we have determined its offer of £410 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, and have made a finding of maladministration in its handling of the matter.
  13. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. This depends on the severity of the failings and the impact on the resident. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order for a further £250 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2022, was sent within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code. However, the complaint response did not set out at what stage the complaint was at, or how the resident could escalate his complaint it he wanted to. This was unreasonable and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that complaint responses must set out the complaint stage, and how to escalate the complaint if the resident was unsatisfied. That the landlord did neither in its complaint response created an obstructive complaint process that was inconvenient for the resident.
  3. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation in February 2023, when the resident asked it to. We note the resident said in his email, of 14 February 2023, that he asked the complaint to go to stage 2 of the procedure in January 2023. While we do not seek to dispute his claim, we have not been able to corroborate it. What is clear is the landlord operated a hard to access complaint process by not escalating the complaint in February 2023. This caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident experienced further time and trouble due to the need to seek assistance from this Service, in June 2023, to progress the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, appropriately offered redress for its complaint handling delays. However, it offered no apology or appropriate learning. That it did not set out what learning it had done, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again was unreasonable. Its response missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust with the resident.
  5. While we welcome the fact the landlord offered redress for its evident complaint handling failings, the lack of apology and learning has led to a finding of service failure in its complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, we have determined the offer of compensation it made for its complaint handling was reasonable. We have therefore not made any further orders for compensation related to its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £860 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £610 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £660 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause by errors in its handling of the repairs.
      2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. The landlord must provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for damage to his possessions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs. It must consider the failings identified in this report, and identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord investigate its handling of the possible leak it discovered in October 2023, as there is no recorded outcome. The landlord may wish to raise a further inspection if it finds it did not follow up and complete the leak trace investigation.